News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.6K     0 

G

GregWTravels

Guest
Clicking on the article shows a map, which includes all the high speed rail links they would like to build. The map shows links into Canada at Niagara Falls and Windsor.

Probably will never come to pass...

news.enquirer.com/apps/pb...40397/1077

Train would link Ohio cities
Planners project $3.2 billion high-speed line
BY JON CRAIG | ENQUIRER COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS - State officials are promoting - and already planning for - a $3.2 billion high-speed passenger rail line linking Cincinnati to Dayton, Columbus and Cleveland.

"The day the first high-speed passenger trains ... roll into town is not the time to unlock the old depot or break ground for a new train station," said the Ohio Rail Development Commission.

The rail commission, an independent branch of the state Department of Transportation, is hosting a Columbus-area conference today about the proposal for public officials and planners from five states.

It will examine such issues as where to put rail stations, what kind of retail development cities could expect, how rail passenger systems work in New England and elsewhere, and how to do it in the Midwest.

"The No. 1 operative question for the user is: 'Can I get there quicker and more cost-effectively than if I drive?' " said commission spokesman Stu Nicholson.

Nicholson insists that skyrocketing gasoline prices and shifting public attitudes about mass transit are giving his group some steam.

A 2004 study by Transportation Economics & Management Systems Inc. estimated that one-way rail fares between Cincinnati and Columbus would average $50. It would cost $95 one-way between Cincinnati and Cleveland.

Frequent rail users, students, senior citizens and weekend travelers would likely be offered lower fares.

Rail passengers' commuting time can be spent more productively than people traveling across the state by car or air, Nicholson said. They can read, safely make calls or work on laptop computers, he said.

Working against the train enthusiasts: A growing federal budget deficit, competing spending priorities and rising freight train traffic, which would have to share the rail lines.

Is their project pie-in-the-sky?

"That's exactly the question I ask," said Mark Policinski, executive director of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, the area planning agency. "The only way this happens is with a massive federal investment."

If successful, the rail network could extend into West Virginia, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, even Canada.

Nicholson said Ohioans could ride passenger trains on the so-called 3-C corridor - 258 miles of track named after Ohio's three largest cities - within two years of federal funding.

To gain momentum, the state commission has joined a 28-state group working to make passenger rail service a reality. In addition to actively lobbying Congress for money, Nicholson said a federal environmental impact study is planned next year to set the project in motion.

Amtrak figures show only 12,407 people got on and off Amtrak trains in 2005 in Cincinnati - fewer people than used Amtrak in Newton, Kan., or Tukwila, Wash.

But Nicholson suggested more people would use it if it came through town more than twice a week at odd hours.

More freight is carried by rail than ever before, but on fewer miles of track.

Allison D'Aurora of the Columbus Bureau contributed. E-mail jcraig @enquirer.com
 
Don't get too excited just yet. The little factoid on their website suggests that this "high-speed rail" is not bullet-train type, but more like Quebec-Windsor Corridor type VIA rail.
 
It's a fairly practical low-budget plan. It'll increase speeds to about 110mph on most routes. Not exactly high-speed, but it'll make the train more competitive and, more importantly, more reliable and frequent.
 
It's a fairly practical low-budget plan. It'll increase speeds to about 110mph on most routes.
Click to expand...

VIA is rated to 100 MPH on parts of Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and Toronto-London. With more track improvements to get most of the corridor to 100 or 110 MPH, then Montreal would be less than 4 hours, Windsor/Detroit less than 3 hours. I'd be quite happy with a good 110 MPH corridor from here to Toronto (I'm writing this in Chicago) - that would be a 6-7 hour trip if customs is worked out to be efficient.
 
In a co-authored report between Quebec and New York on how to increase the speed of rail service between Montreal and New York (via Albany), it was suggested that a more efficient model for customs would be the pre-clearance like is currently employed in the airports. This improvement would shave an hour off the Montreal-New York trip (though, of course, some of that time would still be incurred by the passengers by showing up earlier at the train station).

It's an idea that works well for Montreal-New York, as there isn't any reason to stop when heading south from Montreal prior to the border. Trips from Toronto to Chicago or New York would be more problematic, as you would be stopping a number of times before hitting the border.

Greg
 
The Eurostar between Paris and London uses pre-clearance, which is quite efficient.
 
They definately have to speed up customs. I checked the bus/train/air between Toronto & NYC, and the times are approximate 8-11 hours for the bus, 24 hrs for the train, and 4-5 hours for the air (check in time to exiting the airport). For the train, they estimate 2 hours at customs.

I don't think HSR will ever fly in NA, unless a decent system is created. Having a very limited route system won't make people think about this alternative if its available. Know, if you could go to all the regional cities along the eastern seaboard, with starting points in Toronto and MTL, then it gets engrained in peoples heads that HSR is an option.
 
The biggest problem with HSR proposals is that all too often they are trying to create something grand out of nothing. When I see proposals in places such as Florida, Texas, or even many parts of California, I have to laugh at how they expect a service such as HSR to succeed in places where rail travel is almost nonexistant.

HSR is probably best treated as a value added service in places where rail travel is allready well established (Eastern Seaboard and Quebec-Windsor corridor). It isn't just enough to have two major points connect. You need all the support systems to get people too those points (commuter rail, transit, taxis, bikes, walking) all well as having other points within the system that are going to help generate enough ridership.

I wouldn't count on International HSR anytime soon. For starters the Federal government in the United States has nothing but contempt for rail travel opting for bigger, better, faster highways. And in Canada who is going to want to hand over money for international connections when domestic ones are a far greater concern. It may one day happen but I think it will be well after each country has established its own HSR corridors before international links are made.
 
High-speed rail routes can be successful where existing rail service is not. Even the London-Paris route was pretty pathetic by rail before the tunnel, and now the Eurostars have 65% of the market.
 
^True. But it is afterall, Paris and London, and in countries and on a continent that allready has extensive HSR coverage as well as typical passenger rail service its little surprise that it was a success. And this is not the same as North America, where many places have little rail service not because of the geographic barriers that Paris and London faced, but because rail travel in general has been on the decline for the past 50 or 60 years.
 
Indeed, it is most important to have a way to get around once you arrive in your destination. That is why these initiatives in places like Ohio will fail. There's no reason to go downtown in the first place, most people don't live there, transit within cities is poor, etc.
 
Here is a question that maybe some people have some thoughts on. Say for example a HSR line was in fact built in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, in particular, the case of a line between Montreal and Toronto. Obviously some parts of the line within their urban boundries would be difficult to upgrade because of space limitations, but outside of the two cities there is one aspect which I have wondered about. I would imagine that much of the line could simply be built next to or, or very close to the existing CN corridor. But what about when the line goes into smaller towns and cities?

I can see, for example, proponents wanting the line to directly serve cities such as Port Hope or Cobourg since they are within a close enough distance to central Toronto to perhaps fall under regular commuter/regional service. Yet what about other stops along the line such as Belleville, Napanee, Brockville, Cornwall, Trenton, etc, where the current line goes through or relatively close to these cities. Is there any point in trying to build a new dedicated HSR/passenger rail alignment through these places? Would a common practice be to bypass these places and simply serve them by spurring off the mainline when necessary?

The reason I ask is because I am doing research on HSR and this is a question I haven't been able to find much information so I thought I would try here since there seem to be some rather knowledgable people on this forum. Any other information or resources you might know of dealing with the more technical aspects of this subject would be helpful too.
 
A number of reports were written in the late 1990s about high speed trains for Canada. One was written by the federal, Ontario, and Quebec governments. Another was a proposal by the Lynx consortium, made up of Lavalin and Bombardier among others. The routing that the former detailed study recommended for the 300 km/h route is as follows:

-Windsor to London on the existing CP line, with freight re-routed onto the parallel CN line

-A by-pass around London with a station on the outskirts of the city

-A new alignment to Kitchener, with a stop at Kitchener

-A new alignment to a Pearson Airport stop

-Existing alignment to Union Station

-Existing alignment, new tracks past stop at Pickering to Cobourg (but no stop there)

-New alignment north of the 401 to a station stop just north of Kingston

-New alignment to Ottawa with a stop at the existing station

-Existing VIA Rail-owned route to Montreal with station stop at Dorval

-Existing tracks to Central Station

-Through Mount Royal tunnel to Laval stop

-Old north shore CP line through Trois Rivières stop past Ancienne-Lorette stop to Quebec (Gare du Palais)

Obviously the entire route would have dedicated trackage with the exception of the immediate vicinity of the terminals at Toronto and Montreal, where trains would be restricted to 160 km/h.
 
I think there would need to be two different levels of service. Milk-run stopping at each station on the route and express Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. It might even make sense to have Toronto-Montreal with no stops.

Only if we minimise the number of stops will such service be competitive with air travel.
 
Of course there would be both express and local services on the route. The fastest Toronto-Montreal time would be 2h21 minutes. There would be 27 trips a day between Toronto and Ottawa.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top